Solar electricity cultures: Household adoption dynamics and energy policy in Switzerland

Energy Research & Social Science 63 (2020) 101395

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss

Solar electricity cultures: Household adoption dynamics and energy policy in Switzerland

T

Linda Bacha, , Debbie Hopkinsb, Janet Stephensonc ⁎

a

Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, United Kingdom Transport Studies Unit, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, United Kingdom c Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago, New Zealand b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: PV adoption dynamics Cultural change Photovoltaics Energy cultures Multi-scale policy Context-specific policy

The promotion of solar photovoltaics (PV) is one way that countries can reduce their energy-related greenhouse gas emissions. While there has been substantial growth in the uptake of PV in countries around the world, often coupled with financial incentives, climate change mitigation demands accelerated transition pathways. To drive purposeful policies, the underlying dynamics of PV adoption and diffusion need to be better understood. Specifically, place-specific social and cultural differences across countries and regions can impact policy effectiveness. This paper contributes to debates on PV adoption and energy policy in Berne, Switzerland, one of the top European countries of per capita PV growth. With a qualitative investigation of the household electricity cultures of PV adopters and non-adopters we examine the way in which ‘cultural’ attributes influence the uptake of PV. The research points to the complex dynamics of (non-)adoption. First, the findings illustrate that while cultures allow for change, their dynamics have self-sustaining tendencies. Secondly, more broadly shared cultural trends form part of a regionally-specific ‘contextual soup’ shaping the electricity cultures of households. Acknowledging place-specific, multi-scalar cultural dynamics we discuss the need to rethink policy preferences for economic factors in a one-size-fits-all perspective and promote targeted, context-specific PV policies.

1. Introduction The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C [1] provides compelling evidence of the need for unprecedented action on climate change. It shows that while limiting warming to 1.5 °C is possible, it demands ambitious mitigation strategies [1]. At the national scale, this includes policies for clean electricity production, as electricity generation is a major emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG), contributing approximately 25% of emissions worldwide [2]. One way to achieve this reduction is by shifting from conventional electricity sources, such as natural gas and coal, to renewable energies including solar, wind and hydro. Strong national policies play an important role in the transition to a low-carbon energy system, for instance by providing financial incentives for consumers, setting ambitious renewable energy targets, and encouraging research and development (R&D) activities for renewable technologies [3]. Photovoltaics (“PV”) have seen an exponential growth over the past decade [4], especially among households in countries with attractive subsidy programmes such as Germany [5]. However, conventional approaches to climate change mitigation, including financial incentives, are not in line with the necessary speed needed [6,7]. Yet by

⁎

focusing action on sensitive intervention points, a small change can result in a larger, nonlinear system change [7]. To drive purposeful intervention, understanding the underlying dynamics of PV adoption becomes increasingly important to ensure policies drive rapid uptake of PV to reduce the need for fossil-fuelled electricity. A number of non-financial factors that influence the adoption and diffusion of PV have been identified, including socialisation, peer behaviour and expectations [8,9], the desire for independence from the electricity grid [10], environmental concerns [11], and levels of knowledge and interest in renewable energies [12]. These findings have important implications which can assist the design of energy policy to support PV uptake. However, as we will go on to show, the findings are highly varied within and between countries and regions. Understanding the spatial embeddedness of energy transitions, including the economic, material and cultural components of energy systems [13], as well as the different scales at which these processes change and interact with each other, challenges a one-size-fits-all policy approach. The sensitive treatment of geography and scale in policy-making yields important results [13]. In this paper, we contribute to debates on PV adoption and energy policy through a detailed qualitative investigation of the

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Bach), [email protected] (D. Hopkins), [email protected] (J. Stephenson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101395 Received 6 May 2019; Received in revised form 1 October 2019; Accepted 29 November 2019 2214-6296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Energy Research & Social Science 63 (2020) 101395

L. Bach, et al.

household electricity cultures of PV adopters and non-adopters in Berne, Switzerland. Using the concept of energy cultures [14–16], we examine the way in which ‘cultural’ attributes may influence the uptake of PV, and unpack some of the complex dynamics of (non-)adoption. The results point to possibilities for context-specific policy that supports PV adoption, and aids national- and regional-scale responses to climate change. Theoretically, this paper contributes to the development of the Energy Cultures Framework with its focus on the dynamics of the energy cultures (rather than the objects), a hitherto under-explored component of the framework [16]. In Switzerland, most PV is on rooftops, with very little groundmounted utility scale PV due to the country's small size [17]. Switzerland has one of the fastest growing solar markets in Europe (installed capacity per capita1; [8]) and continued growth of this innovation is crucial to fill the void left by nuclear generation, which will be phased out as part of the country's Energy Strategy 20502 [18]. However, despite its potential to assist in the nation's low-carbon transition, solar electricity contributed only 2.9% to the country's net electricity consumption in 2017 [19], and residential PV has been lagging behind commercial and industrial PV, making up around 10% of total PV capacity in 2017 [17]. Further, Switzerland is planning to end its two PV subsidies by 2022 and 2030, respectively [20]. It is therefore imperative to develop a supportive policy environment that can encourage ongoing PV uptake by Swiss households. Switzerland is not alone with these challenges, and our findings are relevant for other nations grappling with PV energy policy design.

given country, research findings are not always consistent, such as in the UK in relation to the role of education for PV adoption. Similarly, Schaffer and Brun [25] found settlement structure (i.e. the type of dwelling) to be an important determinant of PV diffusion in Germany, while further research in Germany by Dharshing [27] did not. Such divergent findings may cause ambivalence or rejection by policy makers and those involved in policy design, and result in a focus on generic policy based on technical and economic factors rather than devising more targeted policy that takes societal and cultural factors into account. Table 1 also points to the important role of place and context [13] in PV adoption. Following a review of literature on barriers to PV adoption, Karakaya and Sriwannawit [12, p.65] conclude that “technology diffusion is context specific” and, argue that understanding “local conditions of the particular context [is required] in order to overcome the barriers” to PV adoption. Bridge et al. [13] argue that geography should be more sensibly integrated into energy transitions research, acknowledging that energy transitions are spatially-constituted. The geographies of energy transitions constitute not only “the distribution of different energy-related activities across a particular space and the underlying processes that give rise to these patterns” but also the connections and interactions between these spaces [13, p.333]. In terms of PV adoption, understanding the cultural and social dynamics of households in their broader cultural setting, as well as the interactions of these dynamics across scales [35], may contribute to more effective policy design by paying “more attention to the spaces and places that transition to a low-carbon economy” [13, p.331]. As well as understanding place-specific factors that influence PV adoption, recognising how these factors may change over time is also highly relevant to policy design. Drivers of PV uptake are likely to vary across time and space because they are continually evolving, influencing and being influenced by individual, social, cultural, policy and political factors. For instance, personal motivations as well as dominant societal motivations and norms across a population will change at varying paces [36]. Traditional methodologies investigating uptake usually provide a spatio-temporal ‘snap shot’, which may fail to pick up on society-wide shifts in perceptions and practices over time. Retroactively investigating the dynamics of PV adoption by studying households that have already adopted the technology requires the research participants to reflect on past decision-making, which can be subject to memory bias [37]. By failing to acknowledge the fluidity of motivations and “tak[ing] present practices entirely for granted, treating the perpetuation of current ‘standard’ as an unquestioned, nonnegotiable part of the equation” [38, p.52], policies might end up ineffective in the short- or long-term, or both. To investigate the different and changing factors influencing PV adoption, some studies have compared motivations of adopters with non-adopters (e.g. [26,39]) or have investigated potential future adopters (e.g. [8,22,31,40]). The research presented in this paper examines motivational fluidity and context-specific socio-cultural influences on adoption through a comparative approach of PV adopter and non-adopter dynamics, to expose how cultural attributes influence behaviour and how these attributes can change through the process of PV adoption.

2. Literature review 2.1. Situating social PV adoption research Research into PV adoption had traditionally focused on financial drivers and economic analyses [21], but a growing body of social science energy research has broadened the focus to include a range of nonfinancial factors that influence energy behaviour. Research on attribute preferences [22,23], peer behaviour and expectations [8,9,24] and adopter characteristics [25–27] have developed more nuanced understandings of the drivers and barriers of PV adoption. These studies have been wide-ranging in terms of methodological approaches, and have included case studies in countries and cities of the Global North and South [12,28,29]. Table 1 highlights the range of economic, technical and social factors influencing PV adoption that have emerged from research in selected European countries. While not a systematic review nor an exhaustive list of PV adoption research, the studies indicate the diversity of factors influencing the adoption process.3 The findings presented in Table 1 suggest that as well as the more well-studied technical and economic factors, of which policy makers should be aware, there are various place-specific societal factors influencing uptake, including social and cultural differences. These societal factors can vary within and between countries. For instance, research in Germany identified socioeconomic characteristics, such as income, to be an important driver of adoption [25,27], however, research conducted in Switzerland [31] and the UK [24,34] did not. Similarly, while education has been found to impact adoption in Germany [27] and the UK [24,34], research in Switzerland has not [31]. Furthermore, differences are not just at the national-scale. Even within a

2.2. PV adoption through an energy cultures lens Investigating place-specific societal factors that are likely to influence PV uptake invites a cultural approach. The term ‘culture’ has distinct (sub-)disciplinary understandings, but for this paper includes “not only the beliefs and values of social groups, but also their language, forms of knowledge, and common sense, as well as the material products, interactional practices and ways of life established by these” [41, p.65]. Thus ‘culture’ is used in this paper to refer to the various material and immaterial attributes which constitute PV adoption preferences and electricity-related outcomes. Cultural attributes may have a high degree of stability but can also change (rapidly or slowly) over

1

The 2017 installed 1.96 GW capacity is expected to double by 2022 [6]. Based on three pillars, the Energy Strategy 2050, the revised Federal Energy Act of May 21, 2017, focuses not only on (1) promoting measures to increase energy efficiency and decrease energy usage, and (2) prohibiting the construction of new nuclear plants, but also (3) the strong promotion of renewable energies such as hydro, solar, wind and biomass. 3 For the full list from which these studies are derived, please see Supplementary Material. 2

2

Switzerland

Switzerland

The United Kingdom (England)

The United Kingdom

The United Kingdom (England & Wales)

Petrovich et al. 2018 [31]

Margelou 2015 [32]

Allan and McIntyre 2017 [33]

Balta-Ozkan et al. 2015 [30]

Richter 2013 [24]

Germany

Schaffer and Brun 2015 [25]

Switzerland

Germany

Korcaj et al. 2015 [9]

Hille et al. 2018 [22]

Germany Germany

Rode and Weber 2016 [30] Karakaya et al. 2015 [10]

Switzerland

Germany

Dharshing 2017 [27]

Curtius et al. 2018 [8]

Country

Study

Table 1 Examples of social factors influencing PV adoption.

3 332,216 domestic PV installations (2010–2013)

374,445 domestic PV installations (2013)

9059 residential PV installations (2010–2012) 269,449 domestic PV installations (2010–2012)

410 homeowners and potential PV adopters (2016) 408 homeowners and non-PV owners (2016) 408 homeowners and non-PV owners (2016)

820,000 residential PV installations (2012)

200 homeowners, non-adopters (2013)

576,000 household PV installations (2009) 9 PV adopters and 5 employees at a PVsupply firm (2012 - 2013)

807,969 residential PV installations (2000 2013)

Sample

Econometric analysis

Spatial econometrics

Agent based diffusion model Spatial econometrics

Stated preference survey

Choice experiment

Stated preference survey

Regression analysis

Online survey, Path analysis

Epidemic diffusion model Case study

Spatial econometrics

Method

Adoption drivers:Wealth, property type, home-ownership, population density, spatial spill over effects, existing capacity. No significant influence on adoption: Environmental attitude, solar irradiance, employment rate, education. Adoption drivers: Electricity demand, education level, population density, pollution levels, household types and solar irradiation are factors influencing PV adoption. No significant influence on adoption: Income level. Adoption drivers: Social contagion, higher education. No significant influence on adoption: Income levels (show only a small effect).

Adoption drivers: Socioeconomic status (higher income, higher education level and lower unemployment), spatial spill over effects between neighbouring counties. No significant influence on adoption: Environmental attitudes and settlement structures. Adoption driver: Highly localised imitative adoption behaviour. Adoption drivers: Desire for self-sufficiency and independence from the traditional electricity supply (complemented by environmental awareness, peer effects and financial stability desires), the local solar company as communicator to reduce complexity. Adoption drivers: Aspirations of social status (subjective norms), autarky and financial profit. Adoption barriers: Costs, efforts and risks. No significant influence on adoption: Perceived environmental benefit and perceived economic benefit for the country. Adoption drivers: Solar radiation, high household density (settlement structures), homeownership, high GRP per capita and neighbourhood effects. No significant influence on adoption: Environmental consciousness. Adoption drivers: Social contagion and peer effects, both descriptive (considered as typical or normal) and injunctive norms (considered as socially expected). Adoption drivers: Colour and country of origin of the PV modules, increased revenues and decrease in the initial investment cost. Adoption drivers: Wealth, aesthetics of PV, spatial peer effects, family and friends’ choices, gender. No significant influence on adoption: Income, age, education, household types, children, environmental attitude. Adoption drivers: Economic considerations and income levels.

Key findings

L. Bach, et al.

Energy Research & Social Science 63 (2020) 101395

Energy Research & Social Science 63 (2020) 101395

L. Bach, et al.

heuristic device that highlights three key aspects of culture and indicates that these are strongly interactive. These three key attributes are defined in Stephenson et al. [15, p.119] as follows:

time, as culture is arguably human beings’ primary adaptive mechanism to changing circumstances and contexts [42]. For this research, a cultural framing invites a nuanced investigation of household attributes such as their material, normative and behavioural characteristics, and how these are dynamically interactive. For instance, through a cultural lens, a photovoltaic installation is not only a physical technology, but rather an item of material culture – imbued with socio-technical promise, capability and affordance. Material items not only reflect culture but can also shape it; PV adoption may lead to further changes in household culture (e.g. to everyday practices, knowledge and beliefs). Recognising this, Pfister et al. [43] suggest that “if one wants to understand how deeply and inseparably interwoven the physical, technological, and social aspects of energy systems are, it makes sense to analyse energy systems as energy cultures” (p.239). In this paper, we use the concept of energy cultures as developed by Stephenson et al. [14–16]. Previous studies have explored energy cultures in relation to topics such as household electricity consumption [44], business adoption of efficient technologies [45], energy efficiency [46], energy consumption choices [47,48], the adoption of solar lighting [49] and PV adoption [50,51]. The Energy Cultures Framework has also been used as the basis of policy recommendations targeted to different clusters of energy cultures within the population [52,53]. Following these approaches, this paper uses the term ‘electricity cultures’ to refer to the cultural components that influence the (non-) adoption of PV. The energy cultures approach invites investigation of the interplay between actors’ technologies, symbolic meanings, knowledge, social norms and everyday activities, as well as the wider context within which the energy culture is situated [54]. Actors may include individuals, households, organisations, businesses and institutions, and collectives of these, where similar cultural attributes are observable. The concept of energy culture is both dynamic (accounting for changes in cultural attributes and outcomes over time) and contextual (recognising the wider landscape within which the energy culture is situated) [16]. The framework is particularly relevant to this research as it acknowledges the complex and changing social, political and economic environment within which renewable energy technologies adoption occurs [50]. Furthermore, the framework can be used to identify energy cultures operating at different scales (e.g. national, regional, city, household) and domains (e.g. residential, business sector, energy, transport) [14,15] as well as the existence of nested cultures [45]. As such, the actor-centred framework offers itself to the exploration of cultural characteristics and dynamics of households that are more (or less) likely to adopt PV, any interplay between households’ and wider cultural characteristics, and how this knowledge can be used to further PV uptake through targeted policy design. While acknowledging the broad range of attributes that may be considered ‘cultural’ [41], the Energy Cultures Framework (Fig. 1) is a

Norms include both expectations, reflecting a shared belief of how people should behave given the existing practices and material culture, and aspirations, reflecting a shared belief of what is considered desirable for the future, for an actor or a group of actors. Practices include both routinised and less frequent habitual activities or processes, which are produced and reproduced coherently with an actor/a group's belief system. Material culture comprises the various physical objects, such as appliances and infrastructure, which determine or influence energy behaviour and usage of an actor/group. The energy culture of an actor or group of actors originates from the transactions between these (and other) cultural attributes, but is also shaped by external influences, which form the influential context within which energy cultures evolve, are sustained, or are re-shaped. These external factors, such as policies, infrastructure and markets, are largely outside the influence of an actor or group of actors. The particular focus of this research is to understand the electricity cultures of households, and especially their dynamics, to gain placespecific insights of the (non-)adoption of PV to further policy efforts. Stephenson [16] suggests that the interactions between an actor's cultural attributes, and their further interaction with external influences, create a dynamic that may result in an internally self-reinforcing energy culture and thus have relatively unchanging energy outcomes. A possibility for change to the actors’ energy culture and thus different energy outcomes can occur either from within, when certain factors begin to misalign, or from external factors exerting new pressures on specific attributes of energy cultures. A change in one of these cultural attributes may result in changes to other attributes (e.g. material culture adoption may lead to practice changes or normative shifts) so that an actor's energy culture, and its energy-related outcomes, may alter incrementally [16]. Applying the framework to PV adoption, this paper aims to understand; first, how a household's electricity culture dynamics influences PV adoption, and second, whether and how their electricity culture changes following adoption of PV. The framework invites consideration of the external influences on an actor's cultural characteristics, and therefore this paper examines whether these broader dynamics support cultural change towards a more positive stance on PV adoption. 3. Methods This paper presents empirical research collected by way of a qualitative investigation of homeowners in Berne, Switzerland. Homeownership has been found to positively correlate with the adoption of solar technologies [50,25,55] due to the large upfront investment required for PV. Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with fourteen PV adopters and fourteen non-adopters. Participants were selected based on their ownership of the property in which they live (for PV adopters, the person had to live in the house which has PV installed on the roof); and decision-making responsibilities in the process to install or not install PV. The canton of Berne is the second largest canton in Switzerland, with a population of approximately 1 million. Berne has one of the highest PV electricity production potentials of the 26 cantons in Switzerland (almost 2.5 TWh/year) [56], which is related to the total available roof area. Berne also has a high PV electricity production per capita of approximately 2.5 MWh/year/capita [56]. This high potential for PV generation per capita makes Berne an interesting case study as policy targeted to suit local electricity cultures could have a significant impact Switzerland's clean energy production. Further, this canton was selected as a case study because Berne has applied for, and received,

Fig. 1. The Energy Cultures Framework [16]. 4

Energy Research & Social Science 63 (2020) 101395

L. Bach, et al.

more governmental subsidies for PV than any other canton,4 and as such, it is interesting to understand in this context, why many Berne residents have not adopted to date. The recruitment process involved a purposive sampling technique [37] using Google Maps’ satellite view to identify houses with PV installations. Residents were contacted by phone and, after clarifying whether they are the owners of the property, asked whether they would like to participate in the study. For each PV adopter, a non-adopter was identified and recruited within the same neighbourhood. The interviews were conducted face-to-face in the participants’ homes, generally one-on-one, although six interviews were conducted with husband-wife pairs, and one interview with a father-son pair. After 28 interviews theoretical saturation was achieved. Demographic information on the interview participants can be found in Table 2. Five expert interviews were also conducted to gain detailed understandings of the broader electricity and PV context in Switzerland. Expert participants were initially contacted by e-mail and invited to participate in the study. The interviews were semi-structured and conducted face-to-face with a government organisation, a transmission system operator, a major utility company, an industry association and a local business. All interviews were conducted in Swiss German, as conducting interviews in the participants’ native language can lead to a deeper immersion into the knowledge and life of the people studied [58]. The Energy Cultures Framework was used to develop interview questions, which identify the relevant cultural attributes of PV adopters and nonadopters and uncover the dynamics between attributes and any shifts in these which might have occurred due to the adoption of PV. The questions were also designed to identify key external influences involved in adoption or non-adoption processes. The interviews were recorded and transcribed into English by the lead author who is fluent in both Swiss German and English. All interview transcripts were anonymised through the process and uploaded to Nvivo11 qualitative software for analysis. After liberally coding significant themes in the data, a second reading and re-coding was undertaken to narrow the identified topics. The Energy Cultures Framework was used to create the main coding categories (under which sub-categories developed throughout the coding process) and guide the interpretation of the results. Concurrently, unexpected themes gradually emerged through exploratory analysis of the interviews, allowing further insights into the electricity cultures. By separately analysing topics which emerged for each participant group (PV adopters and non-adopters), the themes were then visually mapped to illustrate the interrelationships between the different cultural components, as well as the cultural dynamics influencing PV adoption. Whilst a varied sample was desired, purposive sampling, as with most qualitative research, is prone to self-selection bias. Self-selection by non-adopters allowed us to capture the insights of households who may install PV in the future. Thus, while not representative of all households, the inclusion of adopters and non-adopters allowed for a diversity in perspectives to be gained. A further limitation of the semistructured interview technique is a potential social desirability bias [59]. Talking with the participants about PV may result in participants appearing more favourable regarding the technology, with participants expecting some answers to be more desirable than others.

and non-adopter cultures in regard to PV adoption are presented and discussed to understand how cultural change occurs within the household. 4.1. PV adopters and non-adopters It is perhaps self-evident that material culture varied between the PV adopter and non-adopter groups. In addition to the PV panels themselves, however, PV adopters generally owned more alternative technologies such as heat pumps or thermal solar panels, although some non-adopters also possessed these. In some instances, these technologies were installed before the PV installation, and were not necessarily a result of the PV installation, but could reflect long-term interest in, and/ or financial resources to purchase energy innovations. This was not limited to innovations within the home, but included mobility cultures also, with several PV adopters having purchased a plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle or expressing the desire to do so in the future. There were several similarities regarding the practices of PV adopters and non-adopters. Both groups used appliances for the same daily routines, such as cooking and entertainment. Both groups appeared to have good electricity literacy – perhaps as a result of self-selection - and many were aware of their electricity sources. Further, both adopters and non-adopters obtained information about PV from intermediaries including building professionals, as well as through discussions with family, friends and neighbours. Across both groups, electricity-saving methods were generally limited to turning off lights, although some of the PV adopters revealed that they try to reduce their electricity consumption, which was not mentioned by non-adopters in our sample. Both groups expressed the importance of electricity efficiency when buying new appliances. Norms between the two groups differed mainly on desire for independence and environmental awareness. The majority of the nonadopters did not seem to aspire to more independent electricity production, while several PV adopters desired greater independence because of a lack of trust in large utility companies and their non-transparent communication. Several PV adopters emphasised environmental consciousness as the main reason for PV adoption and a few adopters mentioned concerns regarding the environmental friendliness of PV itself, such as the mining of silicon, and sustainable disposal of PV. The interviews revealed that PV technology was considered, overall, to be a reliable technology by both groups. Participants discussed how PV technology is constantly improving. Most participants of both groups appeared to be confident that the technology will continue to improve in the future, and that the PV market will continue to grow. Only a small number of non-adopters reported that the technology was insufficiently developed at present to warrant adoption. The majority of both groups either were already consuming some sort of green energy or expressed the desire for greener electricity, if available. The interviews showed that electricity cultures between adopters and non-adopters of PV are relatively similar (Fig. 2). Both engaged in similar electricity practices, perceived electricity efficiency as important means to reduce energy usage and obtained information from building professionals, family and friends. Further, both perceived PV as a reliable technology. The main differences are that adopters generally owned more renewable technologies, were more driven by environmental consciousness, had greater aspirations for energy independence, and did more to reduce electricity consumption. Environmental concerns appear to be a particularly important driver amongst the PV adopters, which is typical for early adopters. If pre-existing norms were assumed to be the driver of change for PV adoption, then this implies that the technology might have difficulties entering the more pragmatic mass market [36] as norms can prove difficult to be influenced from a policy perspective. However, both participants groups expressed desires for greener electricity, which did not always result in PV purchase. While the adopters opted for PV to fulfil these desires, non-adopters focused instead on higher electricity

4. Household electricity cultures This section contrasts the household electricity cultures of PV adopters and non-adopters to highlight which attributes might drive the adoption process. Subsequently, the dynamics underlying the adopter 4 Berne has received subsidies for almost 5,000 projects, a total of 14% of all projects which received subsidies, realised more than 2,000 projects, and another 4,500 projects are still on the waiting list [57].

5

Energy Research & Social Science 63 (2020) 101395

L. Bach, et al.

Table 2 Demographic information on household participants. Sex

House type

Age

PV installation date

Subsidya

Participant

F

M

Single family

Multiple family

20–40

40–60

60–80

2008 - 2013

2014 - 2017

KEV

EIV

Adopter Non-adopter Total

24% 15% 38%

29% 32% 62%

21% 18% 39%

29% 32% 61%

4% 4% 7%

18% 21% 39%

29% 25% 54%

36% – 36%

64% – 64%

25% – 25%

75% – 75%

a) Introduced in 2009, the cost-covering feed-in remuneration scheme (“KEV”) pays a fixed electricity price for 25 years, once obtained by the PV adopter. The oneoff remuneration scheme (“EIV”), introduced in 2014, currently covers about 20–30% of the initial investment costs, and has wait times of about two years. With this programme PV installations below 100kWp were no longer qualified to obtain the KEV but could obtain the EIV for small installations, whereas installations above 100kWp have the choice to choose between the two subsidy programmes. The KEV subsidy will end in 2022, the EIV in 2030 [16].

Fig. 2. The PV adopter and non-adopter cultures. The household electricity cultures did not differ greatly apart from aspirations for energy independence and the amount of renewable technologies owned.

of modular PV. The belief that Swiss electricity production is “clean”, can reinforce practices of energy efficiency, without creating a perceived need for PV. As practices are not interrupted by unreliable electricity supply from the grid, there is no aspiration to change to a new electricity source – and concerns about reliability and independence from the grid that have been reported in other countries, appear less important. Prejudices regarding PV technology's efficiency and cost, often related to a lack of knowledge regarding the technology, might deter a change in material culture, while the material culture (owning efficient appliances) does not necessarily change electricity usage practices. The interactions between the cultural components of non-adopters appear self-sustaining. They reinforce each other in such a way, that adoption of PV does not have a place in the current culture. This implies that opportunities for change might occur only sporadically and would potentially come from external factors, such as the influence of social peers, for example, to create a change in the selfsustaining mechanism of the non-adopter culture. A variety of cultural dynamics are at play for PV adopters (Fig. 4), which hint to reasons for adoption. Environmental aspirations can, but do not always, drive the adoption of PV. Material culture that includes ownership of renewable technologies such as heat pumps or thermal solar panels, can further strengthen the belief in such technologies, if they match existing expectations. Complexities such as opaque electricity bills appear to strengthen the desire for independence from large utility companies and the electricity system. The practice of active knowledge acquisition, on the other hand, influences PV purchase through expert consultation and other intermediary actors. These dynamics enabled PV adoption through the relations between the cultural attributes driving interest in the technology. These were also common drivers of PV adoption as stated by the adopter participants: environmental consciousness, knowledge regarding the technology derived from the social surrounding, as well as general financial considerations,

efficiency in household appliances when having to replace them. This illustrates that appealing to environmental consciousness does not always result in the same outcome and indicates a general disconnect between desires and actions [60,61]. Thus, environmental values do not always result in PV adoption: “While it may seem common-sensical to assume that all residential PV adopters are earth-loving environmentalists, this simply may not be the case” [61, p.184]. 4.2. Household culture dynamics and cultural change The interaction between material culture, practices and norms is a focus of this research, as understanding how these may result in stasis or change can assist in policy development. As suggested by Ford et al. [50], the specific cultures of PV adopters or non-adopters “may in many circumstances become locked in when norms, practices and material cultures are strongly self-reinforcing” (p.141). Clear interactions between material culture, practices and norms became evident through this research for both cultures and we have mapped the observed dynamic relationships between the components as reported by participants. The data allowed insights into how these dynamics play out in relation to PV adoption. While these dynamics are not the same for each interviewed household, the figures below portray examples of how both PV adopter and non-adopter cultural dynamics tend to be self-sustaining. The dynamics of household electricity cultures without PV (Fig. 3) indicate the factors which may contribute to the non-adoption of PV by some homeowners. Material culture that includes energy efficient appliances may contribute to a ‘good conscience’ amongst the homeowners, which could limit their aspirations or perceived need to purchase cleaner electricity technologies, such as PV. Articulated expectations of idealised, ‘aesthetically pleasing’ architecture may further deter homeowners from purchasing and installing particular forms 6

Energy Research & Social Science 63 (2020) 101395

L. Bach, et al.

Fig. 3. Dynamics of a non-adopter electricity culture. The cultural attributes create a self-sustaining system hindering PV adoption.

Fig. 4. Dynamics of a PV adopter electricity culture. The self-sustaining system results in a positive stance towards PV adoption and displays how the technology adoption can have a knock-on effect leading to further technology adoption (see Christoph, 50). 7

Energy Research & Social Science 63 (2020) 101395

L. Bach, et al.

including payback time and the existence of subsidies, which seems to have made PV an attractive and affordable investment for several of the PV adopters. The self-sustaining mechanism at play for the PV adopters result in a more positive stance towards the technology as each cultural attribute tends to reinforce the other. The cultural dynamics of both adopter and non-adopter electricity cultures portray self-sustaining mechanisms in which material culture, practices and norms are constantly reinforcing each other and therefore perpetuate the existing material cultures, practices and norms. A specific driver, external or internal, which creates these self-sustaining mechanisms in these cultures was not identified, as within the dynamic system the various factors influence each other and as such, can reinforce and prohibit certain behaviour. The “dynamic of pushes and pulls, of interplay between habitus and praxis” [62, p.11] implies that electricity cultures are not easily disturbed and opportunities for change might occur only sporadically. Nevertheless, even with these mechanisms at play, cultures can – and do – adapt. The incorporation of the dynamics of motivation into the analysis, which are not clearly emphasised in the framework, allowed the identification of such cultural changes. According to the Energy Cultures Framework, cultural change becomes possible within cultures if one of the reinforcing components – material culture, norms or practices – “becomes misaligned or shifts” [16, p.6125], and several of the adopters showed a cultural adaption post-technology adoption. These changes in the PV adopter electricity cultures appear mainly driven by the changed material culture, which emerged despite the selfsustaining dynamics. While several participants already had renewable technologies installed before the PV installation, some planned to extend their renewable energy post-adoption by purchasing heat pumps to make optimal use of their own electricity or thermal panels given the positive experience with PV. Several adopters had purchased a plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle or expressed the desire to do so in the future, indicating a knock-on effect on their material culture from having installed PV. Some participants reported changes to the temporal practice of laundry and other domestic tasks to use the electricity they were producing through their PV in the day time, rather than performing these tasks in the evening as they had prior to PV installation. Yet, installing PV did not necessarily result in a desire to reduce consumption. Some, but not all adopters, felt that they did not have to be conscious of their electricity usage as they had previously (prior to PV installation), and most did not perceive a change in their practices or consumption patterns, beyond the temporal dimensions previously mentioned. Some adopters specifically mentioned that their electricity consumption increased due to PV ownership. Rebound mechanisms have been widely reported in home energy innovation (e.g. [63]) and have implications for the longterm benefits of low-energy or sustainable innovations. A change in norms was not identified by our participants, although some participants mentioned an increased knowledge of the subsidy system, the electricity system overall, and the energy politics in Switzerland. The majority of participants did not report becoming more aware regarding their electricity consumption due to PV ownership. This does not mean changes in beliefs and aspirations have not occurred. Such changes might have taken place in imperceptible ways. While norms might appear to be an especially resistant component to change within electricity cultures, and potential shifts in household aspirations do not appear to come about easily [64], socialisation processes through family and friends, for example, can alter norms quite rapidly, as our findings below indicate. Our research showed that cultures can and do change over time, although an alteration, such as acquiring PV, does not uniformly change across a cultural group [16, p.247].

Framework, the iterative analysis revealed the importance of other cultural attributes: the aesthetics of property, a preference for local products and services, and household roles in the adoption of PV, and these may have additional policy implications. These emergent themes reach across the various aspects of the framework and beyond the scale of the household. 5.1. Cultural themes among households The importance of the aesthetics of houses and the overall appearance of the local area to Swiss homeowners emerged strongly in this research across both groups of participants. Home aesthetics relate to particular, and often traditional architectural styles, and also the age of the property. It includes home features such roofing, tiles and facades, which may be visually altered by the installation of PV. This was articulated by Samuel, a PV adopter, who stated that “PV roofs do not look as pretty as a tiled roof. These aesthetic reasons appear to be more important than electricity efficiency to many”. Thus, Samuel acknowledged not only the different appearances of tiles and PV, but also the relative importance of aesthetics in deciding whether to adopt PV, signalling the different cultural valuations of these two items of material culture – PV and roofs. Participants of both groups did not perceive PV to be aesthetically pleasing, or congruent with Swiss housing styles and traditions, but they did suggest that in ‘other places’ it may not be such a concern. For Daniel (69, Non-adopter), “It depends on how the system is incorporated. As already mentioned, our architectural style here in our area is very distinct, special and beautiful. In a city where the building style doesn't matter as much, I feel like PV doesn't have to look as aesthetically pleasing. But here it does.” The importance of aesthetics was overcome by many of the PV adopters through the adoption of a building-integrated PV system5 (“BIPV”). This system was thought to achieve an aesthetically-pleasing solution, and several other adopters wished they had integrated systems instead of modules which sit on top of the roof tiles. Expert interviews also confirmed the importance of aesthetics when homeowners consider PV installations, whether they live in the city or in rural areas: Another challenge for PV in Switzerland are the very high aesthetic demands of the Swiss. This has positive aspects as well, however, as it furthers technology innovation. But the importance of aesthetics challenges our Association's members, as they have to offer more innovative products to customers and install more building-integrated PV on roofs and facades which look well. [Industry Association] A preference for locally produced PV products or localised electricity production also emerged strongly through the research. Adopters mentioned how they are willing to accept a higher investment cost for European products. The willingness to pay higher prices for products and services by local manufacturers was also revealed through expert interviews. The local business interviewed, for example, stated that “People are much more critical in this aspect [with PV] than they are with other technologies, such as heaters”. This perspective was reiterated by a PV adopter, Nina: “I think local production is very important. I think it is very sad that all the PV production facilities are being moved to China and that through globalisation you cannot produce panels locally anymore as they come from China or anywhere else.” One reason for this could be the perceived lower quality of overseas products versus locally produced products. Since reliability is an important consideration in purchasing PV, this contributes to a 5

Building-integrated PV systems (BIPV) replace parts of conventional building materials, such as the roof [65]. BIPVs have been a small niche market product since the early 90s but gained market share in recent years due to their potential for net-zero energy buildings and continued research and development resulting in cost reductions and efficiency gains [66].

5. Multi-scalar cultural dynamics Moving beyond the three constructs of the Energy Cultures 8

Energy Research & Social Science 63 (2020) 101395

L. Bach, et al.

Fig. 5. Observed cultural themes influencing PV (non-)adoption. The importance of aesthetics, localism and household roles influence both PV adoption and non-adoption at a societal scale, while the individual household cultures further dynamically interact with these larger-scale influences.

Interviews conducted with husband-wife pairs revealed some interesting dynamics regarding the decision-making process of acquiring PV. Most participants claimed to have made the decision to purchase PV together. Reasons named for the joint decisions were generally that both own the house and the finances. As such, PV adoption may involve all actors in the household. Throughout the interviews, various participants hinted at the importance of the wife's opinion. An expert interview with a government organisation supported this perspective:

strong preference for local products, which may be reinforced through intermediaries including PV installers’ preferences for locally or regionally produced PV panels. This points to the important roles of intermediaries in determining discourses and perceptions of PV technologies, reliability and performance. [Reliability] depends on the type of panels. My installer said he definitely doesn't work with Chinese products, and only uses European or German panels as those have proven themselves. [Hans-Peter, 73, Adopter]

An installer told me recently, interestingly, that when customers inquire about PV, the installer mainly has to convince the wife. If that can be done, then PV will be installed. It appears that when it comes to investment decisions, the wife usually has the final word. [Government organisation]

Participants similarly indicated the importance of local electricity production by expressing their belief that Swiss electricity production is ‘clean’, particularly in comparison to electricity produced elsewhere. Most participants believed that hydro is a clean electricity source and therefore considered Switzerland's electricity production to be ‘clean’, contributing to environmentalist norms and values.

This participant went on to suggest that while the husband may be more interested in the technical aspects of the technology, women appear to be more concerned with experiential issues of the installation (such as cleanliness of the technology and construction noise), as they tend spend more time at home. Throughout the interviews, both male and female participants further alluded to gendered electricity usage of devices, indicating women engaging in more domestic activities than men.

I would say the Swiss electricity production, with a large share of hydro, is definitely one of the cleanest productions in Europe. [Michael, 46, Non-adopter] If we import a lot of cheap energy from Germany and Poland, such as coal, then that does not make any sense. [Peter, 85, Non-adopter] In addition to the cleanliness of local electricity production, participants of both groups reported perceptions of reliability of the Swiss electricity grid, while articulating displeasure with electricity imports from abroad. This may reduce the motivation for installing PV to gain independence from the grid as reported in other countries, if the national system is already perceived to be reliable and safe. The importance of local electricity production, however, transcends even international borders, and reaches down to the (sub-)regional scale. For example, one non-adopter (Jonas, 62) stated that he thinks critically about electricity from the canton of Zurich (ca. 200 km distance to Berne) to be used in his region: “Yes, I think [cleaner energy] is the future. However, buying green energy from Zurich to be used here in Berne, I am sceptical about that.” Scepticism was related to the perceived transport loss of electricity, as well as regional competition or rivalry. The third theme emerging from the interviews was household roles.

5.2. Scales of cultural influence The Energy Cultures Framework is a heuristic that intentionally simplifies the concept of culture while acknowledging the broader range of cultural attributes that may influence energy-related outcomes. Our analysis points towards broader cultural dynamics at play with PV adoption in Berne, which are shared across adopters and non-adopters. Aesthetics, localism and household roles are shared cultural factors which influence PV adoption, and intersect with broader ideas of socialisation, technological development, reliability of technologies, and environmentalism. These factors can be, and were, used to justify both adoption and non-adoption of PV technologies and, being produced and reproduced within the broader cultural dynamics of Bernese society, influence household electricity cultures as a whole (see Fig. 5). While aesthetics may not seem immediately connected to the PV 9

Energy Research & Social Science 63 (2020) 101395

L. Bach, et al.

acquisition decision process, they nevertheless impact each household culture in regard to PV adoption. For instance, the expectations of building aesthetics may deter purchasing PV for non-adopters, either directly through personal preference, or indirectly by way of neighbours expressing concerns about the visible impacts of PV. Strict building regulations, which differ between municipalities and may require a permit for a PV installation, can further act as external barriers to the PV acquisition process. As such, perceptions of aesthetics not only within the household, but on the regional level as well, reflect broad cultural influences at multi-level frames of reference which influence the adoption of PV. This finding is likely to differ between countries, regions and neighbourhoods, with older and more traditional properties perhaps more likely to resist installing PV, regardless of the individual household culture – but this may be linked to particular, and perhaps out-dated perceptions of the visual attributes of PV. The importance of localism to the household participants indicates where trust is placed. The perceived notion that European products and local expert services are more reliable and of better quality reproduce biases that exist across products (e.g. electronics, vehicles etc.), and this points to the broader importance of localism as a trend across geographies and domains. A reason for this preference might be emotional connections to local products and the local economy ([67,68] cited in [22]). Perceived trustworthiness is closely related to the household's interaction with its social surrounding. For instance, family and friends’ experiences with the PV technology were shown to encourage interest in PV acquisition of a household. While our research suggests that adopters may be less concerned about the opinion of their neighbours compared to non-adopters, the interviews indicated that socialisation and peer effects such as influences by friends and family, and a positive public sentiment towards PV, act as important drivers for PV adoption. Trust not only extends to social circles, but also to local building professionals – so called ‘intermediaries’ who have an important role in the innovation process [69] and creation of societal change [70]. Knowledge acquisition is impacted by what is perceived to be trustworthy by the homeowners. Both expert and homeowner participants reported a general lack of interest and knowledge about PV among building professionals in Switzerland, such as electricians and architects, who can play an important role in influencing homeowners’ purchase decisionmaking. Interactions with local expert therefore represent an important platform of trust, which can drive or hinder interest in the technology. As such, agents in whom trust is placed can play an important role regarding public acceptance of PV [71] across households to facilitate cultural change. Heteronormative domestic roles emerged from our research, and depicted gendered roles of energy consumption and involvement in household energy decision-making including PV adoption. The roles within the household, including for instance, time spent on (unpaid) domestic labour as well as work outside of the home, appeared to determine the perceived importance and utility of household appliances, and financing of and decision-making about technology acquisition. Energy research has pointed to the importance of considering gender particularly relating to: access to energy services, the design of energysaving technologies, and energy consumption [72,73]. Moreover, it has been suggested that interventions to reduce domestic energy demand have gendered effects [74]. Our observations indicated that ‘male’ roles are associated with higher degree of knowledge about PV technology and the household energy system, while ‘female’ roles have an important, but different, position in the PV acquisition decision-making process. This finding tentatively points to some gendered dynamics in household decision-making that may contribute to the installation, or not, of PV. Further research would assist in understanding these dynamics and their implications for uptake of energy innovations. Our findings echo factors reported in previous research on PV adoption in Switzerland. Aesthetics (colour) as well as country-of-origin were identified to be the main factors to increase preference for residential PV among Swiss homeowners planning to renovate their roof

[22]. Petrovich et al. [31] concluded that “households’ intention to install significantly correlates with the perceived visual attractiveness of solar panels” (p.23). Hille et al. [22] suggest a strong Swiss preference for BIPV showing private homeowners willing to pay a premium of 21.79% for an integrated solution, with a preference for red and black coloured panels (p.29). The nationalistic sentiment has previously been identified with survey participants indicating a desire for at least 88 percent of electricity to be “made in Switzerland” [75, p.3], and 46 percent preferring local electricity generation [76, p.7]. Further, research has shown a strong preference for local ownership of Swiss hydropower plants [77], and a preference for European over Chinese panels [22]. As such, Swiss have been referred to as “local patriots” [78, p.317], who are willing to accept higher investment cost depending on the origin of a product or service. Very few studies have evaluated the impact of household roles on the PV adoption process, yet it has been reported that women are less likely to choose PV when retrofitting their house in Switzerland [31], without further elaboration on why this might be the case. The broader cultural influences identified in this section transcend both individual household electricity cultures and the shared cultures of adopter/non-adopter groups, confirming the existence of multiple, contemporaneous cultural scales involved in the dynamics of PV adoption [13,35]. While different household electricity cultures co-exist in Berne, there are cultural attributes within that society that appear to be more widely shared which are also influencing PV adoption. For this region (and possibly other regions of Switzerland) perceptions about aesthetics, a preference for local products and services, and assumptions about household roles are influencing decision processes about technology adoption. These findings show how some of the cultural attributes that influence the adoption of low-carbon technologies may be locally or regionally distinctive. Energy transitions are already acknowledged as highly complex [79]. The existence of place-specific cultures at “multiple scales that constitute contemporary spatialities” [35, p.15] add to this complexity but also help explain why culturally-blind policies fail. Rather than focusing on so-called ‘push and pull’ factors, a perspective on energy cultures enables an alternate (and hopefully complementary) view of PV adoption, bringing together the dynamics of cultural factors at household, collective and regional scales. While complicating the straightforward (and more common) policy view of adoption as predominantly a financially-driven decision, a cultural analysis offers a richer understanding and a palette of opportunities for culturally-sensitive policy interventions. 6. Conclusion and policy implications This paper has presented the empirical findings of a qualitative investigation of household electricity cultures of PV adopters and nonadopters in Berne, Switzerland. The concept of energy cultures underpinned our exploration of the cultural factors influencing PV adoption, revealing cultural dynamics for both adopters and non-adopters as well as more widely shared and possibly regionally-distinctive cultural attributes. This builds on and illustrates Stephenson et al.’s [14–16] propositions regarding the interactivity of cultural attributes within household energy cultures as well as the existence of multi-level energy cultures. Previous research has often implicitly presented a somewhat static energy culture of material culture, practices and norms, and the external influences, without paying adequate attention to the heterogeneous, diverse and dynamic interactions between the various components. This paper has extended theorisation of energy culture dynamics by pointing to the dynamic stability of the material culture, norms and practices of the participants (individually and when grouped as ‘non-adopters’ and ‘adopters’). It has also shown how more broadly shared societal beliefs such as those relating to aesthetics and localism can form part of a regionally-specific ‘contextual soup’ that itself shapes the energy cultures of households. The ‘extension’, to this end, relates to 10

Energy Research & Social Science 63 (2020) 101395

L. Bach, et al.

our foregrounding of the situated and dynamic nature of energy cultures – or in this case electricity cultures relating to PV adoption. These multi-scalar dynamics show how PV adoption behaviours are shaped by factors over which individual households have limited agency. Policies that fail to appreciate these dynamics, and that focus only on economically ‘rational’ push and pull instruments, are therefore likely to have limited success. This location-sensitive cultural approach for the investigation of energy behaviours may help to explain why previous studies have produced vastly different findings regarding the drivers and barriers of PV adoption. Recognising that cultural traits can be specific to particular scales and geographies indicates the need to rethink policy preferences for economic factors in a one-size-fits-all perspective and promote differential policy designs based on place-specific societal factors instead. Perspective gained from multi-scalar dynamics of energy cultures may contribute to the shaping of policy design by recognising that PV adoption is part of broader questions relating to social life, for instance, aesthetic dimensions of places, gendered roles, and trust in building professionals – so called ‘intermediaries’ – (and the industry more widely). This may suggest that findings from this, and other social science energy research, needs to be framed within its wider context, beyond ‘energy’ or ‘sustainability’; to better understand their situatedness within social life. This has important implications for policy. For instance, if PV policy is no longer envisaged as a suite of generalised incentives and disincentives, but as an alignment with the cultural characteristics and dynamics of the target population, a wider set of possible actions can be devised resulting in magnifying impacts across regions. In the case of Berne, policy approaches may be more successful if designed around households’ concerns for aesthetics, the preference for localness, and gender roles in decision-making. Our research has also shown that while energy cultures clearly allow for change, the internal cultural dynamics within individual households have self-sustaining tendencies. Appreciating that energy cultures can be self-reinforcing due to the interactivity of material culture, practices and norms helps explain why households may be resistant to change. From a policy perspective, focusing interventions only on incentivising change in a particular item of material culture (i.e. PV adoption) is missing the point of how closely linked this is to practices and norms, as well as other items of material culture. Interventions that instead sought to shift householders’ norms and/or practices may be an alternative policy approach that builds on these findings of how strongly these are linked with material culture. By sensitively destabilising these less-tangible elements of a self-reinforcing energy culture, it is possible that households would become more ready and able to adopt PV or other low-carbon technologies. In relation to Berne, and potentially Switzerland, our findings suggest that policy makers should consider tailoring their PV policies to the cultural themes identified:

cultural drivers influencing householders’ willingness to adopt new technologies. In relation to the internal dynamics of electricity cultures:

• Policies could focus on incentivising adoption of a suite of com-

patible low-carbon technologies rather than PV alone, and/or encouraging practice changes (e.g. adopting time of use electricity pricing to align with sunshine hours) and/or seek to reinforce or shift relevant normative positions (e.g. reinforcing the ‘localness’ of PV).

It is important to acknowledge, however, that these findings are specific to the households studied in the canton of Berne, Switzerland. Aesthetics and a concern for localness may be less important, or unimportant, in other Swiss cantons or other countries, regions and cities. A key message from this research is that culture matters, and that energy research must be place- and time-specific. In examining how and why actors resist or adopt new technologies, the concept of energy cultures offers understandings that are not available from other dominant perspectives on technology adoption such as behavioural economics or practice theory. Focusing on the cultural attributes of actors at different societal scales, and the dynamic interactions between these attributes, provides a complementary set of insights that have direct policy relevance. The sensitive incorporation of place-specific, multiscalar cultural dynamics can help to craft targeted, purposeful policies to more effectively achieve fast-paced transition to a low-carbon society. Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Supplementary materials Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.erss.2019.101395. References [1] IPCC, Global Warming of 1.5 °C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty, (2018) Summary for Policymakers. [2] IPCC, Summary for policymakers (2014), IPCC 2014: climate change 2014. Mitigation of Climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University Press, 2014. [3] M.T. El-Ashry, National policies to promote renewable energy, Daedalus 141 (2) (2012) 105–110, https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00150. [4] World Energy Council (2016): World energy resources: solar. Available online at https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/WEResources_Solar_ 2016.pdf. [5] Y. Karneyeva, R. Wüstenhagen, Solar feed-in tariffs in a post-grid parity world. The role of risk, investor diversity and business models, Energy Policy 106 (2017) 445–456, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.04.005. [6] A. Pfeiffer, C. Hepburn, A. Vogt-Schilb, B. Caldecott, Committed emissions from existing and planned power plants and asset stranding required to meet the Paris agreement, Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (5) (2018) 54019, https://doi.org/10.1088/17489326/aabc5f. [7] J.D. Farmer, C. Hepburn, M.C. Ives, T. Hale, T. Wetzer, P. Mealy, et al., Sensitive intervention points in the post-carbon transition, Science 364 (6436) (2019) 132–134, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw7287 New York, N.Y.. [8] H.C. Curtius, S.L. Hille, C. Berger, U.J.J. Hahnel, Rolf Wüstenhagen, Shotgun or

In relation to the broader cultural dynamics identified:

• Recognising the importance of aesthetics to Swiss homeowners

• •

can not only increase PV uptake but also aid policy makers in reducing buildings’ emissions while preserving the historic image of a region. Coloured and building-integrated solutions (“BIPV”) could be specifically supported by policy instruments. Marketing efforts should be focused on illustrating the variety of available colours and panels to change householders’ perceptions of PV as unfitting to a certain building style. Regional PV companies could specifically promote European products, given the indicated willingness to pay more for regional products, such as inverters, mounting systems and meters. Intermediaries such as building professionals (e.g. electricians and architects), can play an important role in influencing homeowners’ purchase decision-making. Recognising the preference for and trust placed in local building experts, policies can support professional development that includes an understanding of 11

Energy Research & Social Science 63 (2020) 101395

L. Bach, et al.

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

[16] [17]

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

[32] [33] [34] [35]

snowball approach? Accelerating the diffusion of rooftop solar photovoltaics through peer effects and social norms, Energy Policy 118 (2018) 596–602, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.005. L. Korcaj, U.J.J. Hahnel, H. Spada, Intentions to adopt photovoltaic systems depend on homeowners' expected personal gains and behavior of peers, Renew. Energy 75 (2015) 407–415, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.007. E. Karakaya, A. Hidalgo, C. Nuur, Motivators for adoption of photovoltaic systems at grid parity. A case study from Southern Germany, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 43 (2015) 1090–1098, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.11.077. T.M. Qureshi, K. Ullah, M.J. Arentsen, Factors responsible for solar PV adoption at household level. A case of Lahore, Pakistan, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78 (2017) 754–763, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.020. E. Karakaya, P. Sriwannawit, Barriers to the adoption of photovoltaic systems: the state of the art, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 49 (2015) 60–66, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.rser.2015.04.058. G. Bridge, S. Bouzarovski, M. Bradshaw, N. Eyre, Geographies of energy transition. Space, place and the low-carbon economy, Energy Policy 53 (2013) 331–340, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.10.066. J. Stephenson, B. Barton, G. Carrington, D. Gnoth, R. Lawson, P. Thorsnes, Energy cultures. A framework for understanding energy behaviours, Energy Policy 38 (10) (2010) 6120–6129, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.05.069. J. Stephenson, B. Barton, G. Carrington, A. Doering, R. Ford, D. Hopkins, et al., The energy cultures framework. Exploring the role of norms, practices and material culture in shaping energy behaviour in New Zealand, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 7 (2015) 117–123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.005. J. Stephenson, Sustainability cultures and energy research. An actor-centred interpretation of cultural theory, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 44 (2018) 242–249, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.034. Schmela, M.; Beauvais, A.; Chevillard, N.; Paredes, M.G.; Heisz, M.; Rossi, R. et al. (2018): Global market outlook. For solar power / 2018–– 2022. Solar Power Europe. Available online athttp://www.solarpowereurope.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/09/Global-Market-Outlook-2018-2022.pdf. SFOE, Schweizerische Elektrizitätsstatistik 2016, Swiss Federal Office of Energy, 2017 Available online at http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00526/00541/00542/ 00630/index.html?lang=en&dossier_id=00765. SFOE, Schweizerische Elektrizitätsstatistik 2017, Swiss Federal Office of Energy, 2018 Available online at https://www.bundespublikationen.admin.ch/cshop_ mimes_bbl/8C/8CDCD4590EE41EE8A19CE5098FE73DC6.pdf. SFOE (2018): Förderung derPhotovoltaik – Faktenblatt. Bundesamt für Energie. Available online athttp://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00612/02073/index.html? lang=de&dossier_id=02090. B.K. Sovacool, What are we doing here? Analyzing fifteen years of energy scholarship and proposing a social science research agenda, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1 (2014) 1–29, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.003. S.L. Hille, H.C. Curtius, R. Wüstenhagen, Red is the new blue – the role of color, building integration and country-of-origin in homeowners’ preferences for residential photovoltaics, Energy Build. 162 (2018) 21–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.enbuild.2017.11.070. T. Islam, N. Meade, The impact of attribute preferences on adoption timing. The case of photo-voltaic (PV) solar cells for household electricity generation, Energy Policy 55 (2013) 521–530, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.12.041. L.-L. Richter, Social Effects in the Diffusion of Solar Photovoltaic Technology in the UK, University of Cambridge, 2013 Working Paper in Economics 1357. A.J. Schaffer, S. Brun, Beyond the sun—Socioeconomic drivers of the adoption of small-scale photovoltaic installations in Germany, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10 (2015) 220–227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.010. B. Sigrin, J. Pless, E. Drury, Diffusion into new markets: evolving customer segments in the solar photovoltaics market, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (084001) (2015) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/8/084001. S. Dharshing, Household dynamics of technology adoption. A spatial econometric analysis of residential solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in Germany, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 23 (2017) 113–124, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.10.012. S. Bawakyillenuo, Deconstructing the dichotomies of solar photovoltaic (PV) dissemination trajectories in Ghana, Kenya and Zimbabwe from the 1960s to 2007, Energy Policy 49 (2012) 410–421, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.06.042. S. Komatsu, S. Kaneko, R.M Shrestha, P.P. Ghosh, Nonincome factors behind the purchase decisions of solar home systems in rural Bangladesh, Energy Sustain. Dev. 15 (3) (2011) 284–292, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2011.03.003. J. Rode, A. Weber, Does localized imitation drive technology adoption? A case study on rooftop photovoltaic systems in Germany, J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 78 (2016) 38–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.02.001. B. Petrovich, S.L. Hille, R. Wüstenhagen, Beauty and the budget: homeowners’ motives for adopting solar panels in a post-grid parity world, Manuscript accepted and Presented At 6th World Congress of Environmental and Resource Economists, Gothenburg, WCERE, 2018. S. Margelou, Assessment of Long Term Solar PV Diffusin in Switzerland. Agentbased Diffusion Model for Single Family houses, Master thesis Paul Scherrer Institut, Lausanne, 2015. G.J. Allan, S.G. McIntyre, Green in the heart or greens in the wallet? The spatial uptake of small-scale renewable technologies, Energy Policy 102 (2017) 108–115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.005. N. Balta-Ozkan, J. Yildirim, P.M. Connor, Regional distribution of photovoltaic deployment in the UK and its determinants. A spatial econometric approach, Energy Econ. 51 (2015) 417–429, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.08.003. G. Bridge, The map is not the territory. A sympathetic critique of energy research's spatial turn, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 36 (2018) 11–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.

2017.09.033. [36] Rogers, E.M. (2010): Diffusion of innovations: Simon & Schuster. [37] A. Bryman, Social Research Methods, fifth ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2016. [38] E. Shove, G. Walker, D. Tyfield, J. Urry, What is energy for?Social practice and energy demand, Theory Cult. Soc. 31 (5) (2014) 41–58, https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0263276414536746. [39] V. Vasseur, R. Kemp, The adoption of PV in the Netherlands. A statistical analysis of adoption factors, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41 (2015) 483–494, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.020. [40] R. Scarpa, K. Willis, Willingness-to-pay for renewable energy. Primary and discretionary choice of British households' for micro-generation technologies, Energy Econ. 32 (1) (2010) 129–136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2009.06.004. [41] S. Hays, Structure and agency and the sticky problem of culture, Sociol. Theory 12 (1) (1994), https://doi.org/10.2307/202035. [42] Richerson, P.J.; Boyd, R.(2005):Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago:University of Chicago Press. [43] T. Pfister, S. Glück, M. Suhari, Towards studying energy systems as energy cultures, Innovation 30 (3) (2017) 239–243, https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2017. 1319263. [44] J.C. Sweeney, J. Kresling, D. Webb, G.N. Soutar, T. Mazzarol, Energy saving behaviours. Development of a practice-based model, Energy Policy 61 (2013) 371–381, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.121. [45] M. Bell, G. Carrington, R. Lawson, J. Stephenson, Socio-technical barriers to the use of energy-efficient timber drying technology in New Zealand, Energy Policy 67 (2014) 747–755, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.12.010. [46] N. Dew, K. Aten, G. Ferrer, How many admirals does it take to change a light bulb? Organizational innovation, energy efficiency, and the United States Navy's battle over LED lighting, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 27 (2017) 57–67, https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.erss.2017.02.009. [47] F. McKague, R. Lawson, M. Scott, B. Wooliscroft, Understanding the energy consumption choices and coping mechanisms of fuel poor households in New Zealand, N. Zeal. Sociol. 31 (1) (2016) 106–126. [48] R. Bardazzi, M.G. Pazienza, Switch off the light, please! Energy use, aging population and consumption habits, Energy Econ. 65 (2017) 161–171, https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.04.025. [49] S. Walton, A. Doering, C.-A. Gabriel, R. Ford, Energy Transitions: Lighting in Vanuatu (Project report), (2014). [50] R. Ford, S. Walton, J. Stephenson, D. Rees, M. Scott, G. King, et al., Emerging energy transitions. PV uptake beyond subsidies, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 117 (2017) 138–150, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.12.007. [51] G. King, J. Stephenson, R. Ford, PV in Blueskin: Drivers Barriers and Enablers of Household Photovoltaic Systems in the Blueskin Communities Otago New Zealand, (2014) A report for the GREEN Grid research Project. [52] J. Stephenson, B. Barton, G. Carrington, D. Hopkins, M.J. Lavelle, R. Lawson, et al., Energy cultures policy briefs. With assistance of university of Otago: centre for Sustainability, University of Otago: Centre for Sustainability, Dunedin, New Zealand, 2016. [53] B. Barton, S. Blackwell, G. Carrington, R. Ford, R. Lawson, J. Stephenson, et al., Energy Cultures. Implication for Policymakers: Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago, 2013. [54] M. Sarrica, S. Brondi, P. Cottone, B.M Mazzara, One, no one, one hundred thousand energy transitions in Europe. The quest for a cultural approach, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13 (2016) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.019. [55] B.F. Mills, J. Schleich, Profits or preferences? Assessing the adoption of residential solar thermal technologies, Energy Policy 37 (10) (2009) 4145–4154, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.014. [56] D. Assouline, N. Mohajeri, J.-L. Scartezzini, Quantifying rooftop photovoltaic solar energy potential. A machine learning approach, Sol. Energy 141 (2017) 278–296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.11.045. [57] Mehinovic, M.; Frei, H.-H. (2018): Kostendeckende Einspeisevergütung (KEV). Anmeldestatistik Stand 1. Januar 2018. Pronovo AG. [58] R.M. Keesing, A. Strathern, Cultural Anthropology. A Contemporary Perspective, in: M. Roger, A.J. Keesing (Eds.), third ed., Harcourt Brace College, Fort Worth, London, 1998Strathern. [59] B.K. Sovacool, J. Axsen, S. Sorrell, Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science. Towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45 (2018) 12–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018. 07.007. [60] T.A. Heberlein, Navigating environmental attitudes, Conserv. Biol. 26 (4) (2012) 583–585, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01892.x. [61] C. Schelly, Residential solar electricity adoption. What motivates, and what matters? A case study of early adopters, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2 (2014) 183–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.01.001. [62] R. Wilk, Consumption, human needs, and global environmental change, Glob. Environ. Change 12 (1) (2002) 5–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(01) 00028-0. [63] L.A. Greening, David L. Greene, Carmen Difiglio, Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect—a survey, Energy Policy 28 (6–7) (2000) 389–401, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00021-5. [64] S.H. Schwartz, Normative influences on altruism, in: Leonard Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10 Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 221–279, , https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60358-5 Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. [65] B.P. Jelle, C. Breivik, R.H. Drolsum, Building integrated photovoltaic products. A state-of-the-art review and future research opportunities, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.

12

Energy Research & Social Science 63 (2020) 101395

L. Bach, et al. Cells 100 (2012) 69–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2011.12.016. [66] E. Biyik, M. Araz, A. Hepbasli, M. Shahrestani, R. Yao, L. Shao, et al., A key review of building integrated photovoltaic (BIPV) systems, Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 20 (3) (2017) 833–858, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2017.01.009. [67] P.W.J. Verlegh, J.-B.E.M. Steenkamp, A review and meta-analysis of country-oforigin research, J. Econ. Psychol. 20 (5) (1999) 521–546, https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0167-4870(99)00023-9. [68] T.A. Shimp, S. Sharma, Consumer ethnocentrism. Construction and validation of the cetscale, J. Market. Res. 24 (3) (1987) 280, https://doi.org/10.2307/3151638. [69] J. Howells, Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation, Res. Policy 35 (5) (2006) 715–728, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005. [70] K.B. Janda, Y. Parag, A middle-out approach for improving energy performance in buildings, Build. Res. Inf. 41 (1) (2013) 39–50, https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218. 2013.743396. [71] L. Liu, T. Bouman, G. Perlaviciute, L. Steg, Effects of trust and public participation on acceptability of renewable energy projects in the Netherlands and China, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 53 (2019) 137–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.03.006. [72] S. Oparaocha, S. Dutta, Gender and energy for sustainable development, Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 3 (4) (2011) 265–271, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2011.07. 003.

[73] M. Aune, Energy comes home, Energy Policy 35 (11) (2007) 5457–5465, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.05.007. [74] A. Carlsson-Kanyama, A.-L. Lindén, Energy efficiency in residences—challenges for women and men in the North, Energy Policy 35 (4) (2007) 2163–2172, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.06.018. [75] J. Cousse, R. Wüstenhagen, 8th Consumer Barometer of Renewable Energy, Cooperation with Raiffeisen and SwissEnergy, 2018. Good Energies Chair for Management of Renewable Energies, University of St. Gallen, 2018. [76] K. Gamma, A. Stauch, R. Wüstenhagen, 7th Consumer barometer of renewable energy, Cooperation with Raiffeisen. Good Energies Chair for Management of Renewable Eneriges, University of St. Gallen, 2017. [77] A. Tabi, R. Wüstenhagen, Keep it local and fish-friendly. Social acceptance of hydropower projects in Switzerland, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 68 (2017) 763–773, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.10.006. [78] S. Salm, S.L. Hille, R. Wüstenhagen, What are retail investors' risk-return preferences towards renewable energy projects? A choice experiment in Germany, Energy Policy 97 (2016) 310–320, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.042. [79] B.K. Sovacool, How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13 (2016) 202–215, https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.erss.2015.12.020.

13